Look, using $20 words like "probity" and "rectitude" does not make you honest. The fact remains that I, as well as other posters, have offered you evidence to support our views about aikido on this and countless other threads many, many times. Your reaction is always the same: rejection. You reject any and all evidence as insufficient, unscientific, unrepresentative, biased, dishonest, uninformed etc, etc.

You remind me of Michael Behe, an "intelligent-design" proponent. In a recent court case, Behe persisted in saying the theory of evolution could not account for the bacterial flagellal motor, despite confronted with dozens of peer-reviewed studies that did just that! His reason: he found the 50+ studies cited "insufficient."

Eyrie, this is why I describe your faith in aikido as religious. No amouny of evidence of any kind, from any source, would ever shake your faith.

And your equal rejection of the counter-arguments as invalid, AND insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR point of view is a LIAR, makes you a better, more honest, person???

Where did I suggest your ANECDOCTAL evidence was dishonest??? Please... anecdotal evidence is NOT scientific evidence, show me where I asked for "scientific evidence"... I only asked you to substantiate your "claim".

In fact, which part of this did you not comprehend? I've highlighted the pertinent bits.

Quote:What is remarkable is despite having the logic flaw pointed out, no matter how you vaguely attempt to reword it, you are still saying the same thing - Aikido is ineffective, rather than the more accurate statement that the aikidoka you supposedly "trained" with were ineffective.

In fact, I would be more willing to accept that statement as a prima facie argument than what you are blatantly generalizing.

Now who's being dishonest? You can't even accept the fact I have conceded part of the argument you put forth, and instead persist in twisting my words.

For the record, I'm not rejecting "any or all evidence"... don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply asking you to substantiate your argument LOGICALLY - which is not an unreasonable request given this medium.